Rule Against Perpetuities.

[mutual_biscuit]

WTF? Is this outdated piece of garbage going to be on the exam?



I just don't get it. Seems like I can always come up with some situation to invalidate every life within 21 years (e.g. world explodes).

Can anybody lay it out clear for me? I've tried the examples & explanations, but that just seemed to confound matters even more. This is the only concept I have ever encountered and attempted to learn that I can't seem to understand.

@#!* IT!

 

[clee750]

Yeah, its not fun.

So you have your grant. A to B, until some crazy thing happens, then to C.

Think of anyone who is alive at the time of the grant. It does not matter.

Kill them.

Then ask does that grant have to vest in 21 years.

Try to think of some situation where it will not vest. and that is your argument on the exam.

Like A to B then to C when Michael Vick wins the superbowl. Kill off someone and ask if the land will HAVE to vest to C within 21 years. since Vick will not necessarily win the super bowl the grant is invalid.

[spacemule]

I've got a powerpoint from my first semester property class that I found really helpful.  I'll be glad to email it to you if you'll pm me your address.

One pointer is that 95% of questions involving the rule against perpetuities involve grandchildren.  If you're asked to name the interest and estate, this observation will prove useful. 

I don't find the rule outdated, and I do see a legitimate need for it.

[nealric]

They cut that out of my property class...

Glad they did.

[mutual_biscuit]

Seriously though, can't you always invalidate the transfer by assuming the world explodes? How do you think this argument would play out on an exam?

[spacemule]

The world exploding would not invalidate a transfer, and has nothing to do with RAP.  A key portion is who is alive at the time of the original conveyance.  The land does not have to vest while the original people are alive. 

An easy way to analyze the situation is to take everyone alive on the day of the transfer, and have them adopt a kid the day after.  The next day, kill everyone off that was present and had an interest in the original transfer.  Now, do the remaining interests HAVE to vest in 21 years?  If so, then there is no RAP violation.  If not, then there IS a RAP violation. 

Furthermore, a violation only invalidates the specific part of the transfer that is a violation.  It does not invalidate the entire transaction.

[slacker]

As you'll hear a bunch if you take a bar prep course, a lawyer in CA was found to have not committed malpractice for getting RAP wrong in practice.

[jacy85]

The world exploding would not invalidate a transfer, and has nothing to do with RAP.  A key portion is who is alive at the time of the original conveyance.  The land does not have to vest while the original people are alive. 

An easy way to analyze the situation is to take everyone alive on the day of the transfer, and have them adopt a kid the day after.  The next day, kill everyone off that was present and had an interest in the original transfer.  Now, do the remaining interests HAVE to vest in 21 years?  If so, then there is no RAP violation.  If not, then there IS a RAP violation. 

Furthermore, a violation only invalidates the specific part of the transfer that is a violation.  It does not invalidate the entire transaction.

This is the trick.  It's not about everyone on the planet dying.  It's about everyone at the time of the conveyence being alive (the lives in being), one has a baby the next day, and then everyone but the baby dies tragically the day after that. 

I kept forgetting this myself in the whole process.  If you can keep your lives in being straight, and not insist on the whole world blowing up, you'll get the hang of it!